Cargando…
Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction
PURPOSE: In 1–12 years old children, we assessed correlation, regression, and agreement between spherical equivalents (SE) obtained on Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) and the post cycloplegic refraction (PCRef), performed 72 h after a cycloplegic refraction (CRef) using cyclopentolate 1% drop...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7774185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33120640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_229_20 |
_version_ | 1783630211599826944 |
---|---|
author | Kauser, Farnaz Gupta, Yogesh Amitava, Abadan K Saxena, Juhi Raza, S Aisha Masood, Anam Alam, Md. Shahid |
author_facet | Kauser, Farnaz Gupta, Yogesh Amitava, Abadan K Saxena, Juhi Raza, S Aisha Masood, Anam Alam, Md. Shahid |
author_sort | Kauser, Farnaz |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: In 1–12 years old children, we assessed correlation, regression, and agreement between spherical equivalents (SE) obtained on Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) and the post cycloplegic refraction (PCRef), performed 72 h after a cycloplegic refraction (CRef) using cyclopentolate 1% drops. METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) was performed on 202 eyes of 101 children, from 50 cm with a streak retinoscope, in a dimly lit room, subtracting 1.25 from the trial lens used for neutralization, to obtain the final refraction. Subsequently we undertook CRef, half-hour after instilling 1% cyclopentolate, with a PCRef 72 h later. All refractive data were converted to SE for evaluation. We compared the SEs using correlation, linear regression, and agreement (Bland–Altman graphic analysis) and paired t-test. Significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The mean SE on MNR was 1.71 ± 2.49 D compared to 1.43 ± 2.42 D on PCRef. A significant correlation with r = 0.97 (r(2) = 0.94, P < 0.001) existed. Agreement analysis suggested that MNR overestimates hypermetropia and underestimates myopia each by 0.3 D than the standard procedure of CRef-PCRef. The regression analysis suggested that SE on PCRef is 95% of that on MNR, less 0.20. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that MNR offers single point refraction very similar to CRef-PCRef, and may be considered as a viable option more often. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7774185 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77741852021-01-07 Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction Kauser, Farnaz Gupta, Yogesh Amitava, Abadan K Saxena, Juhi Raza, S Aisha Masood, Anam Alam, Md. Shahid Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: In 1–12 years old children, we assessed correlation, regression, and agreement between spherical equivalents (SE) obtained on Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) and the post cycloplegic refraction (PCRef), performed 72 h after a cycloplegic refraction (CRef) using cyclopentolate 1% drops. METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) was performed on 202 eyes of 101 children, from 50 cm with a streak retinoscope, in a dimly lit room, subtracting 1.25 from the trial lens used for neutralization, to obtain the final refraction. Subsequently we undertook CRef, half-hour after instilling 1% cyclopentolate, with a PCRef 72 h later. All refractive data were converted to SE for evaluation. We compared the SEs using correlation, linear regression, and agreement (Bland–Altman graphic analysis) and paired t-test. Significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The mean SE on MNR was 1.71 ± 2.49 D compared to 1.43 ± 2.42 D on PCRef. A significant correlation with r = 0.97 (r(2) = 0.94, P < 0.001) existed. Agreement analysis suggested that MNR overestimates hypermetropia and underestimates myopia each by 0.3 D than the standard procedure of CRef-PCRef. The regression analysis suggested that SE on PCRef is 95% of that on MNR, less 0.20. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that MNR offers single point refraction very similar to CRef-PCRef, and may be considered as a viable option more often. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-11 2020-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7774185/ /pubmed/33120640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_229_20 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kauser, Farnaz Gupta, Yogesh Amitava, Abadan K Saxena, Juhi Raza, S Aisha Masood, Anam Alam, Md. Shahid Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title | Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title_full | Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title_fullStr | Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title_full_unstemmed | Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title_short | Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
title_sort | do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? a comparison of mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7774185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33120640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_229_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kauserfarnaz doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT guptayogesh doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT amitavaabadank doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT saxenajuhi doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT razasaisha doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT masoodanam doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction AT alammdshahid doallchildrenneedacycloplegicrefractionacomparisonofmohindrasversuscycloplegicrefraction |